clarified test (New Jersey) · Go Syfert
← New Jersey issues

clarified test in New Jersey

9 New Jersey opinions name it 3 courts 2001–2024 4 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Laidlow v. Hariton MacH. Co., Inc.green
nj · 2002 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024
2 sentences

2024In Laidlow v. Hariton Machinery Co., Inc., the Court clarified the test to determine when an employer’s conduct rises to the level of an “intentional wrong” under N.J.S.A. 34:15-8. 170 N.J. 602, 617 (2002).

2024Co., Inc., 170 N.J. 602, 617 (2002)).] Under that test, “an intentional wrong is not limited to actions taken with a subjective desire to harm, but also includes instances where an employer knows that the consequences of those acts are substantially certain to result in such harm.” Laidlow, 170 N.J. at 613 .

11
Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of Americagreen
nj · 1995 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022
1 sentence

2022Co. of America, thusly: [T]he determination whether there exists a genuine issue with respect to a material fact challenged requires the motion judge to consider whether the competent evidential materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party in consideration of the applicable evidentiary standard, are sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party. [ 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995)].

11
State v. Browngreen
njsuperctappdiv · 1990 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
1 sentence

2020Eli now argues that the trial judge erred in failing to provide the jury with a sufficient definition of "arrest." He cites the jury instruction provided by the trial court in State v. Brown, 239 N.J.

11
In re Board's Main Extension Rules N.J.A.C. 14:3-8.1green
njsuperctappdiv · 2012 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019
1 sentence

2019See In re Board's Main Extension Rules N.J.A.C. 14:3-8.1, 426 N.J.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Richardson v. POLICE & F. RET. SYS. green
nj · 2007
2 sentences

2024That statute provides for these benefits "if said employee is permanently and totally disabled as a direct result of a traumatic event occurring during and as a result of the performance of his regular or assigned duties." The Court clarified the factors to be analyzed in these matters in Richardson, 192 N.J. at 212-213 , providing guidance to unify the disparate tests that had previously been applied to accidental disability retirement benefits determinations.

2024A PFRSNJ member is entitled to ADRB if the member is permanently and totally disabled as a direct result of a traumatic event occurring during and as a result of the performance of his regular or assigned duties and that such disability was not the result of the member's willful negligence and that such member is mentally or physically incapacitated for the performance of his usual duty and of any other available duty in the department which his employer is willing to assign to him. [N.J.S.A. 43:16A-7(a)(1).] The Court clarified the factors for our consideration of this analysis in Richardson,

22024–2024
State v. Sugar green
nj · 1987
1 sentence

2018In Sugar II, the Court held that for purposes of the New Jersey Constitution, evidence that would otherwise be subject to the exclusionary rule may be admitted if the State establishes by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) proper, normal, and specific investigatory procedures would have been pursued in order to A-4606-15T4 6 complete the investigation of the case; (2) under all of the surrounding relevant circumstances the pursuit of those procedures would have inevitably resulted in the discovery of the evidence; and (3) the discovery of the evidence through the use of such procedures wo

12018–2018
Taylor v. Metzger green
nj · 1998
2 sentences

2004Further, the Court clarified the test for an intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action as set forth in Buckley, id. at 508-09 , 706 A.2d 685 , and found that the plaintiffs evidence was sufficient to support that cause of action as well, id. at 521 , 706 A.2d 685 .

2004Further, the Court clarified the test for an intentional infliction of emotional distress cause of action as set forth in Buckley, id. at 508-09 , 706 A.2d 685 , and found that the plaintiffs evidence was sufficient to support that cause of action as well, id. at 521 , 706 A.2d 685 .

12004–2004
Trantino v. New Jersey State Parole Board green
nj · 1998
2 sentences

2001Ibid.

2001Ibid.

12001–2001

Where else courts name it

WA 23 (1989–2024) CA 16 (1951–2025) TX 11 (1985–2022) NJ 9 (2001–2024) LA 9 (2007–2020) TN 8 (1997–2014) FL 8 (1962–2018) OH 7 (2003–2021) UT 7 (1985–2024) MI 7 (1989–2017) MT 6 (1983–2009) OR 6 (1987–2018) AZ 6 (1982–2023) PA 6 (1983–2025) AL 6 (1990–2025) IL 5 (2011–2020) IN 5 (1996–2017) MS 5 (2005–2023) NC 5 (1998–2024) CO 4 (1996–2021) WI 4 (2001–2023) SD 4 (2001–2026) NV 3 (2016–2017) OK 3 (2000–2015) KY 3 (2012–2023) MO 3 (1971–2019) GA 3 (1999–2023) WY 2 (1986–2015) ND 2 (2008–2016) MD 2 (2015–2017) HI 2 (2010–2015) ID 2 (1990–2017) SC 2 (1997–2016)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check